P V INVESTMENTS Vs. H D PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioner challenges the award dated 16th August, 1989. The complaint that is made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner against the award is that the award dated 16th May, 1997 made by the sole arbitrator appointed by the National Stock Exchange between the Petitioner and M/s. South India Stock Exchange of India Ltd., which is a sister concern of the Respondent, though produced before the arbitrator was not taken into consideration and has been ignored by the arbitrator. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made a statement, at the bar, before me that the award made by the sole arbitrator dated 16th May, 1997 was produced before the arbitrator.

(2.) IT is to be seen that it was the case of the Petitioner that he was dealing with the Respondent as also M/s. South India Stock Broking Services Ltd., which was stock broker on National Stock Exchange. It is the case of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs. 8,24,36.75 was due to him from the said M/s. South India Stock Broking Services. That being the sister concern of the Respondent in the present petition, instead of paying that amount directly to the Petitioner, an entry in the account of the Petitioner maintained by the Respondent, which is a stock broker on Bombay Stock Exchange was made giving credit to the Petitioner for the said amount. The arbitrator in the present award has also referred to that entry, but has accepted a submission of the Respondent that it is a wrong entry. The learned Counsel submits that had the award made by the sole arbitrator appointed by the National Stock Exchange dated 16th May, 1997 been taken into consideration, then this finding would not have been arrived at by the arbitrator. In substance, the submission of the learned Counsel is that for deciding the controversy raised before the arbitrator, whose award is challenged in the present petition, the award made by the sole arbitrator appointed by the National Stock Exchange was a relevant document. That relevant document was produced by the Petitioner before the arbitrator, but the arbitrator has excluded that document from consideration and therefore, non-consideration of the relevant material available on record vitiates the award made by the arbitrator.

(3.) PARTIES to act on simple copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate/ Personal Secretary of the Court as a true copy.